Currently in prize-winning games, for example lotteries, the game organizer fixes the prize money and sells numbered tickets. Therefore the player purchases one or more tickets (without an expense limit and therefore a limit on purchasable tickets). At the end of a predetermined period of time, or once all the tickets are sold, the prize-winning game organizer determines, through a drawing or other system (mathematical algorithms, etc.), the winning number. The prize money is therefore awarded to the owner of the ticket carrying the winning number. This scheme is always the same in its logic and in its unpredictability, however it is susceptible to various variations, including the one called “inverse lottery”, as disclosed in the US Patent application no. US 2005/0096116 A1.
Such types of prize-winning games present many drawbacks such as, for instance, the absolute unpredictability in the selection of the winner: everything depends on the circumstances that unfold, in a way that is dictated by chance, the winning conditions predetermined by the game system; for example in traditional lotteries everything depends on the chance occurrence, which is not controllable by the player, that the purchased ticket number corresponds to the number drawn by the game organizer.
Furthermore, in traditional prize-winning games there is no involvement by the players in the selection of the winner: the players can only hope that the winning conditions occur, and there is no interaction among the players.
In traditional prize-winning games there is also the possibility of the games causing gaming addiction without an expense limit (for example: buying more tickets increases the probability of winning).
Finally, traditional prize-winning games favor those who can spend the most (who can purchase more tickets or, in any case, participate in the game more times), to the detriment of those who have greater necessity of winning (because they are needy or because they would invest that money in a meritorious work); there is, at the conclusion of the game, the impoverishment of some people (the players who lost and who spent money in order to participate in the game) against the winning of a single person (or of very few people or in any case a limited number of subjects), generating such a system of competition among the players inasmuch as only one (or few) can win, the others necessarily lose.